Search This Blog

Friday, September 26, 2008

Newly published data by Dr. J. Barthelow Classen in the Open Endocrinology Journal shows a 50 percent reduction of type 2 diabetes among Japanese children following the discontinuation of a tuberculosis vaccine. There is currently what is considered a global epidemic of type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome, which includes obesity, altered blood cholesterol levels, high blood pressure, and increased blood glucose resulting from insulin resistance.

A possible link between insulin-dependent diabetes (type 1) and vaccines has already been suggested by numerous studies. Dr. Classen suggests that after receiving a vaccine, some people may develop a hyperactive immune system leading to autoimmune destruction of insulin-secreting cells. Other people may increase cortisol production as the body attempts to suppress the vaccine-induced inflammation. The increased cortisol leads to type 2 diabetes and metabolic syndrome.

(Caldwell, NJ) - As children head back to school this September, the debate about who should decide whether and when parents vaccinate their children continues to rage across the United States. As parents are becoming more educated about vaccines, they are increasingly concerned about the rising number of mandated vaccines - today, fully immunized children receive 69 doses of 16 vaccines by age 18. Parents are alarmed by the concurrent epidemic rates of childhood autism and learning disabilities. They are suspicious of the pharmaceutical industry's undue influence over vaccine policy, and more and more are asking tough questions of their pediatricians about vaccine safety. Some are choosing to stray from the recommended vaccination schedule and delay shots; others are opting out of vaccination altogether. According to a 2006Journal of the American Medical Association survey, the number of parents opting out of some or all of their state's required vaccines, for any stated reason, grew by 6% a year between 1991 and 2004 and rates have allegedly continued to climb since then.

This has groups like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) concerned. In June, the AAP met with 15 allied organizations in Illinois to discuss the growing refusal of parents to vaccinate their children. It is launching a group - the Immunization Alliance - to fight doubting parents in the media, on the internet and in pediatricians' offices. It even circulated a letter to its members encouraging them to refuse treatment to families who choose not to vaccinate.

"It is precisely because of the increasing number of mandated vaccines and strong-arming by states and groups like the AAP to force compliance with the mandates - despite rising rates of autism and side-effects after vaccination - that parents are asking more questions and wanting more choices," says Barbara Loe Fisher, President of the National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) - a non-profit organization advocating for vaccine safety and informed consent protections in the mass vaccination system. Fisher's oldest son was left with multiple learning disabilities and attention deficit disorder after a severe reaction to his fourth DPT shot in 1980 when he was two and a half years old.

And yet, an Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) Resolution concerning mandatory vaccines states that, "parents who exercise their freedom to refuse one or more vaccines may be subjected to penalties ranging from deprivation of the right to enroll their child in school, to threats of removing the child from parental custody and forcible vaccination."

In November 2007 in Maryland, then state attorney general Glenn Ivey issued a summons to more than 1600 parents of children who had not provided vaccination certificates. Despite having refused the hepatitis B vaccine for his own children, Ivey ordered parents to appear in Court to subject their children to on-the-spot mandated vaccines of up to 17 vaccine doses or face fines and imprisonment. AAPS's Executive Director Jane M. Orient said this procedure was "reckless [and improper medical practice that] subjected children to the risk of severe reactions."

Many doctors within the medical establishment have started to question the safety and efficacy of the current vaccination schedule. Pediatrician and TV personality Dr. Jay Gordon says, "I am very much opposed to the routine vaccination schedule in the U.S. There are too many vaccines given too early in a child's life and not enough information given to parents."

As the debate about vaccination heats up, the Holistic Moms Network – a national non-profit with 130 chapters across the country – will host NVIC Co-Founder, Barbara Loe Fisher as one of its Keynote Speakers at the Natural Living Conference. "By bringing parents and vaccine awareness professionals together at our Conference we are helping to educate parents and contribute to the debate about this important issue," says Dr. Nancy Massotto, Executive Director of the Holistic Moms Network.

The organization will hold its 5th annual Natural Living Conference and five-year anniversary celebration on Saturday, October 18th at the Sheraton Crossroads Hotel in Mahwah, New Jersey beginning at 8:30a.m. The event is expected to attract several hundred people as well as sponsors and exhibitors from across the country. With keynote presentations and breakout sessions on health and non-toxic living, and an Exhibit Hall featuring healthy and eco-friendly products and services, attendees will learn about the myriad ways in which they can improve their health and the environment. At the Conference, Fisher will discuss the issue of vaccines and their link to chronic illness.

"Knowledge is power. Parents can make educated vaccine decisions for their children by going online and getting information from the National Vaccine Information Center and the Holistic Moms Network," says Fisher. The Natural Living Conference is a great place to network with other parents who want to empower themselves and take action to protect the health and well being of their families."

Tickets to the Natural Living Conference are $100 for non-members before October 10th, and $110 at the door. Online registration is available at http://annualconference.holisticmoms.org/. Lunch – with a vegetarian option – is included with the price of admission. Some Conference sponsors include Organic Valley, Happy Baby (organic baby foods), and Kiwi Magazine.

I'd like to commend Ms. Schilacci for taking some time to investigate this issue. There are, however a few errors and points that should be clarified:

1. I am not the founder of the NJ Coalition for Vaccination Choice. The Coalition is comprised of many prominent local, state and national organizations which have come together in support of a voice for parents to have choice regarding vaccines, in view of the substantial gaps in our knowledge and the current science that profoundly challenges conventional belief regarding vaccine safety and efficacy.

2. When I discuss the role of thimerosal in the vaccine debate, I am very clear to stress that the issue of mercury in vaccines doesn't even come close to representing the lion's share of our concerns about mass, forced and increasing vaccination. Having said that, mercury is not good for our children and it is not good for adults either, in any dose, in any form, in any situation, ever. It is the single most non-radioactive neurotoxic substance known to man, up to 1000 times more toxic than lead. And still, the other issues about vaccines are even more troubling.

3. Ms. Schilacci quotes me as questioning the “rhetoric” of injecting dozens of chemicals in our children. Please note that it isn’t merely rhetoric and flowery oratory. It’s fact and it’s real. Check out this table provided by the CDC. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf Please also note that it isn't just the chemicals. We are talking about virulent, pathogenic viruses and bacteria, replicated on neoplastic (cancerous) cell lines, grown on monkey kidney and chicken embryo tissue, nurtured with "food" derived from fetal calf serum. We are talking about, not just the possibility, but the very strong likelihood of the presence of bacterial and viral contamination and oncogenic substances that can compromise our biological integrity. Read what the FDA has to say. www.fda.gov/cber/gdlns/ptccell.pdf Or ask any molecular biologist or vaccine researcher to opine on the issue. S/he will tell you that we do not have the procedures in place to assure non-contamination. It would cost too much and take too long. Plus, how can you find something if you don't acknowledge or recognize what you're looking for? Prions, deadly animal viruses, it may sound like the stuff of science fiction but the reality is that these substances can cross species lines and have real, long-term, deadly and tragic effects on human beings.

4. Ms. Schilacci provides my quote "At what point do you say there is some integrity to the human body?" without the full context that helps to explain my statement. When it comes to vaccination and our willingness to keep adding more and more shots to the schedule, it is clear that legislators are being unduly swayed because we are not holding public health officials and vaccine makers to the highest standards of scientific inquiry. The controlled studies proving safety do not exist. Period. And so I ask, at what point do we concede that we could be compromising the integrity of the human body by injecting so many pathogens and toxic ingredients into our children without the scientific studies backing safety and efficacy and without full medical and scientific understanding about the mechanism of both vaccine-induced and infectious-disease induced immunity.

5. And finally, Ms. Schilacci requested a quote from a well-respected physician to demonstrate that our views are increasingly mainstream. Labor Day weekend is not the best time to schedule an interview. I offer you a quote from an exceptional board-certified pediatrician, Dr. Larry Palevsky http://www.northportwellness.com/: “It's time for us to do due diligence around the subject of vaccines. For too long, we as physicians have accepted, carte blanche, the material we've been taught regarding the safety, efficacy, and science concerning vaccines. It is time for us to practice better science - ask the questions that are uncomfortable to ask, discover the answers we might not be happy to learn about, and keep asking better questions until we have sufficient science to support our vaccine policies. The current vaccine science we accept as dogma is not in line with the respectable scientific standards we claim to uphold. We could be doing better, and our children depend on our precision.” And for good measure, here’s a second quote from Dr. Lawrence Rosen, a board-certified pediatrician and Chief of Pediatric Integrative Medicine at Hackensack University Medical Center, “There are risks associated with all medical practices, including vaccines, so it is important for parents, along with their doctors, to evaluate an individual child’s medical history and health, including genetic predispositions and allergies, to determine what is appropriate. Informed consent is a key ethical principle in medical practice.”

I currently have three seminars scheduled in NJ over the next four weeks. I offered to Ms. Schilacci to return and see the last half of my talk at another venue. The invitation is open to everyone, public and the press alike, to attend our Parent Vaccine Choices seminars held statewide over the next month. Details at http://www.njvaccinationchoice.org/ and click on Calendar of Events. I also attach a recent press release for your information.

Thank you for your time and please don’t hesitate to contact me should you have any further questions.

Monday, September 1, 2008

If you have concerns about the increasing number of shots your children have to get for school every year, please attend one of the three remaining Parent Vaccine Choices seminars in NJ over the next month. Register with your name and location selected to vaxRSVP@verizon.net.

Before you give your child her next round of shots, click on http://medalerts.org/vaersdb/index.html, select the vaccine(s) you’re considering, select other parameters including died, disabled, hospitalized and read the cases. Remember that only about 1 to 10% of all adverse events are reported.

Rally with us in Trenton on September 18 from noon to 1:30pm. Go to http://www.njvaccinationchoice.org/ for details. Monmouth County residents interested in carpooling, contact us ASAP. We have 8 spots in one van and can try to coordinate a second van if necessary.

MOVIES

(All 50 states) Contact me if you’re interested in screening Gary Null’s film Vaccine Nation in your community. I can provide talking points and support. Depending on your location, we can send someone to help facilitate a discussion afterwards. http://www.vaccinenation.net/

We’ll be showing the Emmy award winning 1982 film DPT: Vaccine Roulette* next! This is the first time Americans were told that vaccines could cause permanent, serious traumatic brain injury and death.

*This is what Barbara Loe Fisher says about the film: I stood in my kitchen and watched the Emmy Award–winning NBC-TV documentary DPT: Vaccine Roulette, produced by consumer reporter Lea Thompson in spring 1982. I called the television station and asked to see the medical research that had been used to document the show. There, in the pages of Pediatrics, The New England Journal of Medicine, The Lancet, and The British Medical Journal, I found clinical descriptions of reactions to the pertussis vaccine that exactly matched the symptoms I had witnessed my son have within four hours of his fourth DPT shot. www.mothering.com/articles/growing_child/vaccines/wake.html

The following has been reposted with permission from a message on the nonjvaccmandates yahoo loop:

"I just wanted to let you all know that I sent this article to my OBJYN and my kids' pediatrician. I saw my OBGYN the day after I sent it and she found the article very poignant and had not seen it yet. She read the whole thing and did more research after reading. (My kids' pediatrician doesn't offer Gardasil at all because she thinks it is not tested well enough, so she didn't comment back.) I think it hit a major nerve with my OBJYN about how this vaccine has been fast-tracked and not given to people that are in more of a risk group first and that the girls taking it are the "test group" She is currently offering Gardasil, but is considering changing her policy. We should all send this to our OBGYN (or midwives) and Pediatricians so we can help to spread the word about this horrible vaccine. Each mother or doctor we tell can help to save girls' lives.

The other great benefit is that this opens the conversation for other vaccines that are not well-tested and pushed through the system. I find many women are ready to question Gardasil, but have never thought to question other vaccines, so this helps them to question all vaccines more. It also helps doctors to question where they are getting their information (ie do they just listen to the research done by a huge drug company). I know Pediatricians and OBJYNs are the most overworked doctors in the field, so they have even less time to do research on their own. We can help them to become more informed.

Despite great expectations and promising results of clinical trials, we still lack sufficient evidence of an effective vaccine against cervical cancer. Several strains of human papillomavirus (HPV) can cause cervical cancer, and two vaccines directed against the currently most important oncogenic strains (i.e., the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes) have been developed. That is the good news. The bad news is that the overall effect of the vaccines on cervical cancer remains unknown. As Kim and Goldie1 point out in this issue of the Journal, the real impact of HPV vaccination on cervical cancer will not be observable for decades.

Although it was licensed for use in the United States in June 2006, the first phase 3 trials of the HPV vaccine with clinically relevant end points — cervical intraepithelial neoplasia grades 2 and 3 (CIN 2/3) — were not reported until May 2007, first in the Journal2 and 1 month later in the Lancet.3,4 The vaccine was highly successful in reducing the incidence of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV-16 and HPV-18, but a number of critical questions remained unanswered.5,6 For instance, will the vaccine ultimately prevent not only cervical lesions, but also cervical cancer and death? How long will protection conferred by the vaccine last? Since most HPV infections are easily cleared by the immune system, how will vaccination affect natural immunity against HPV, and with what implications? How will the vaccine affect preadolescent girls, given that the only trials conducted in this cohort have been on the immune response? The studies with clinical end points (i.e., CIN 2/3) involved 16- to 24-year-old women. How will vaccination affect screening practices? Since the vaccines protect against only two of the oncogenic strains of HPV, women must continue to be screened for cervical lesions. Vaccinated women may feel protected from cervical cancer and may be less likely than unvaccinated women to pursue screening. How will the vaccine affect other oncogenic strains of HPV? If HPV-16 and HPV-18 are effectively suppressed, will there be selective pressure on the remaining strains of HPV? Other strains may emerge as significant oncogenic serotypes.

Resolving the first essential questions will require decades of observation of large numbers of women. The last question may be answered sooner. Published reports of trials show an increasing trend of precancerous cervical lesions caused by HPV serotypes other than HPV-16 and HPV-18.2,4,6 The results were not statistically significant, however, possibly because there were too few clinically relevant end points in the observation periods reported. If randomized, controlled trials involving vaccinated and unvaccinated women continue for a few more years, we will most likely be able to tell whether this is a true trend. If so, there is reason for serious concern.

By the summer of 2007, there were definitely promising results with regard to the effectiveness of the HPV vaccine in the prevention of precancerous lesions (i.e., CIN 2/3) caused by the HPV-16 and HPV-18 serotypes. However, serious questions regarding the overall effectiveness of the vaccine in the protection against cervical cancer remained to be answered, and more long-term studies were called for before large-scale vaccination programs could be recommended.5,6 Unfortunately, no longer-term results from such studies have been published since then.

In the meantime, there has been pressure on policymakers worldwide to introduce the HPV vaccine in national or statewide vaccination programs. How can policymakers make rational choices about the introduction of medical interventions that might do good in the future, but for which evidence is insufficient, especially since we will not know for many years whether the intervention will work or — in the worst case — do harm? One way to provide decision support is to develop mathematical models of the natural history of the disease in question, introduce various intervention strategies, and use cost-effectiveness analysis to estimate the costs and health benefits associated with each clinical intervention. The results are typically expressed in terms of the amount we will have to pay for the extra health benefit of the treatment — that is, in dollars per life-year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) saved. Cost-effectiveness analyses are tools for decision making under conditions of uncertainty. These analyses do not in themselves provide evidence that medical interventions are effective. In this issue of the Journal, Kim and Goldie present a model of HPV vaccination, and they use a cost-effectiveness analysis to make projections of the possible health and economic implications of the use of the vaccine.1

To evaluate the quality of a cost-effectiveness analysis, it is essential to appraise the model's input variables, the uncertainties, and the choices the researchers have made. To set up such an analysis of a preventive medical intervention — in this case, a vaccine given to healthy 12-year-old girls — that might have an effect on the incidence of cervical cancer decades from now is extremely complex. The analysis has to model the natural history of HPV infection in this cohort of girls over their lifetime, the effect of the vaccine over all those years (whether it is the same effect or one that is waning), the effect on other HPV strains, the effect of the vaccine on the natural immunity against HPV infections, the sexual behavior of the girls and women and their partners, and finally, women's cervical-cancer screening practices.

The model presented by Kim and Goldie is well done and ambitious, and it includes most of these factors. They conclude that under certain assumptions, vaccinating 12-year-old girls is associated with an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $43,600 per QALY gained, whereas adding a catch-up program for older girls and women is not cost-effective. However, their base-case assumptions are quite optimistic. They presume lifelong protection of the vaccine (i.e., no need for a booster dose), that the vaccine has the same effect on preadolescent girls as on older women, that no replacement with other oncogenic strains of HPV takes place, that vaccinated women continue to attend screening programs, and that natural immunity against HPV is unaffected. Whether these assumptions are reasonable is exactly what needs to be tested in trials and follow-up studies. If the authors' baseline assumptions are not correct, vaccination becomes less favorable and even less effective than screening alone. For example, as shown in the article, if the protection of the vaccine wanes after 10 years, vaccination is much less cost-effective and screening is more effective than catch-up programs.

With so many essential questions still unanswered, there is good reason to be cautious about introducing large-scale vaccination programs. Instead, we should concentrate on finding more solid answers through research rather than base consequential and costly decisions on yet unproven assumptions.

No potential conflict of interest relevant to this article was reported.

Source InformationFrom the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association, Oslo.